The Honor able Jane A. Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of I nternational Trade , * sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0888n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 12, 2006 No. 05-2453 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
CU RT IS J . G RA ND ER SON , Plaintif f-Appellant , v. UNIVERSITY OF M ICHIGAN , Defendant-

Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: DA UG HTREY and COLE, Circuit Jud ges; RESTANI , Judge. * R. GUY COL E, JR., Circuit Judge. This case involves the appe al of the district c ourt’s dis mis sa l of a ra c ia l- dis c ri min a tio n c la im br ou g ht by Cur tis J. Gr and e rs on , P lai nt iff -A pp e lla nt,
a g a ins t hi s e mpl oy e r, the Un ive rs ity of Mic hig an (“ Un ive rs ity” ), De fe nd ant- Ap pe lle e , und e r T itl e VI I of t he Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964 (“ Title VI I ”), 42 U .S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq . For the re asons that follow, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND O n

Ja n u a r y 2 , 2 0 0 1 , the University fired Gra nderson, a

long- time food-ser

vice wor ker. More t han a y ear

afte r his termination, on Marc h 21, 20 0 2 , Gr anderson filed a c harg e with the Michig an Employ ment Relations Comm issionNo. 05-2453

Granderson v. U

niversity of Michigan

- 2 - (“ ME RC” )— a st ate a g e nc y that r e so lve s la

bo r d isp ute s th ro ug h th e a pp oin tme nt o f m e diator s,
arb itr a tor s, and

fa c tf ind e rs . In his ch arg e , Gr and e rs on a sse rt e d f e de ra l c la ims a g a ins t th e Un ive rs ity under the Fa

mil y and Medic al L eave Act (“ FMLA”) and the Ame rica ns with Disabiliti es Ac t (“ AD A” ), in a dd iti on

to n ume ro us g ri e va

nc e s a g a ins t hi s unio n und e r M ic hig an’ s Pu bli c Employ ment Relations Act (“ PERA”). Ab s ent from his charg e wa s any claim of ra cial dis c ri min a tio n. B e c a

us e the ME RC la c ks a

uth or ity to e nf or c e e ith e r t

he F ML A o r t

he AD A a nd a lso lacks a uthority to remedy PERA violations that occur more than six months prior to the filing of a
c ha rg e , th e ME RC d ism iss e d a ll o f G ra nd e rs on ’s c la ims
. On J anuar

y 5, 2004, three y ear s after

his termination, Gra

nderson f iled suit pro se in fede ral dis tr ic t c ou rt

a g a ins t th e Un ive rs ity

and To m Rh od e s, his su

pe rv iso r, a lle g inghe wa s unla wf ull y fired be cause he is Afr ican- Americ an and beca use of psy cholog ical disabilities. Grande rson furthe r
a lle g e d h e e xpe ri e nc e d h ara ssm e nt, un fa ir c ri tic ism , f

a lse a c c us a tio ns , a

nd re ta liatio n d

ur inghis tim e wi tht h e U n i v e r s i t y

b e c a u s e o f h i s r a c e an d

d i s a b i l i t i e s . T h e c o mp l a i n tc o n t a i n e d t h r e e c o u nts
a lle g ingnu

me ro us fe de ra l- and

state -l aw v iol a tio ns . On Janu ary 21 , 2 00 4, th e di st ri ct c ou rtdi sm is sedGran ders on ’s su pp le me nta l st a

te -l a w c la ims without prejudice, le aving Gra nderson with cla ims under Title VI I ; the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq .; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 2 9 U. S
. C. § 701 et seq .; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After committing a series of proce dural errors—one resulting in the dismissal of Rhodes as a de fenda nt following a total failure t o serve him with proce ss—Grande rson retained an attorney and, on Mar ch 17, 2005, filed a F irst Amended Compl aint, which omi tted all his previous claims except one c ount of ra c ia l di sc ri min a tio n in

vio la tio n o f T itl e VI I . Ra the r t ha n a ns we ri ngGr and ers on’s c omp la int ,No. 05-2453

Granderson v. U

niversity of Michigan

- 3 - the Univer sity

filed a motion to dismis s for lac k of subject- matter jurisdiction arguing that Gra nderson f ailed to exhaust administrative remedies by neg lecting to file a c harg e of discr imination with the Equal Employ

ment Opportun ity

Commi ssion (“EEOC”) . The district cour t gr anted the Un ive rs ity ’s mot ion

to dis mis s, e xpla ini ng that a pla int if f in a T itl e VI I

c a se mus t f

ir st f ile a tim e ly char g e of discr imination with t he EEOC a nd rec eive a

rig ht-to-sue letter

befor e filing suit in federa l
c ourt . B e c a

us e Gr and e rs on

fa ile d to f

ile su c h a c ha rg e and c ou ld p ro vid e no va lid

e xcu se fo r t

his fa ilure , th e c ourt

dis mis se d w ithpr e

jud ic e Gr and e rs on ’s Ti tle VI I c la im— his on ly re ma ini ngc la im. On J uly 19, 2005, some four- and-a -half y ear s after the Univer sity

terminated him and a

y ear and-a -half a fter f

iling his Title VI Iaction in fe dera l court, Gra nderson filed a charg e with t he EEOC and re ceive d a rig ht-to-sue letter . Gra nderson now a

ppeals the dismissal of his Title VI Iaction. II. DI SCU SSIO N “In T i t l e V I I , C o n gre s s s et u p an el ab o ra t e a d m i n i s t ra t i v e p ro ce d u re , i mp l em en t edt h ro u gh the EEOC, t hat is desig ned to assist in the investigation of claims of ra cial discrimination in the workplac e and to wor

k towards the r esolution of t h es e cla ims through c onciliation rather than litigation.” Patterson v. Mc Lean Credit Union , 491 U.S. 164, 180-81 (1989) ( citing 42 U .S
. C. § 20 00 e -5 (b )) ; see also Morgan v . W ashington Mfg. Co. , 660 F.2d 710, 711 ( 6th Cir. 1981) (explaining the purpose of

Title VI I ’s administrative sche me is “to enc ourag e re conciliation and arbitration of employ ee g rieva

nces pr ior to liti g ation”). It is well settled that a plaint iff must satisfy two prer equisites befor e filing a Title VI Iaction in f eder al court: (1) timely

file a c harg e of e mploy

ment discrimination with the E EOC; and (2) r ece ive and a ct upon the EEOC’s statutory notice of the rig ht to sue (“r ight-t o -s u e l et ter” ). Puck ett v. Tennesse e Eastman Co., 889 F.2d 1481, 1486 ( 6th Cir.No. 05-2453

Granderson v. U

niversity of Michigan

- 4 - 1989) (c iting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5( f)( 1) and McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Gre en , 411 U.S. 792, 798 (1973)) . The prope r ex haustion of admini strative re medies g ives the Title VI Iplaintiff a g ree n light to bring an employ

ment-discrimination claim in court. See, e .g. , Patterson , 4 91 U. S. at 18 1 ( “ On ly
a ft e r . . . the pla int if

f h a s o bta ine d a

‘r ig ht t o s ue ’ l e tte r f

ro m th e EE OC , ma

y he or sh e br inga

Ti tle VI Iaction in cour

t.”). Gr ander son acknow ledg es he ne ver filed a cha rg e of discr imination with t he EEOC and ne ver r ece ived a r ight- to-sue letter befor e filing the under ly ing T itle VI Iaction. On appe al, Gra

nderson f irst argues that he attempted to pro ce ed wi t h available EEOC administrative re medies but, bec ause he was not a lleg ing any form of workplac e discrimination, the EEOC intake super

visor d i re ct ed him to “visit” the National L abor Relations Boar d (“N L RB”)
. On ce at t h e N L R B , G r a n d e rs o ncl ai m s h e w as t h en re fe rr edt o a M E R C age n cy i nL an s i n g, Mic hig an, wh e re he ult imate ly fi le d his c ha rg e . As su c h, Gr and e rs on argue s th a t he c on str

uc tiv e ly
e xha us te d th e a dmi nis tr a tiv e -f ili ngre qu ir e me nt b y

fi lin g a c ha rg e wi th t he ME RC. T h i s ar gu m en tfa i l s fo r s ev er al re as o n s . Fi rs t , ev en i f w e w er e t o as s u m e t h at fi l i n g a c h ar ge wi th the ME RC is tanta

mou nt to fi lin g a c ha

rg e wi th the EE OC , wh ic h it is no t, G ra nd e rs on wa s late in i nv ok ingthe a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e ss. A Ti tle VI I pla int if f mus t fi le a c ha

rg e wi th t he EE OC wi thi n 18 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he oc c ur re nc e of the a lle g e d d isc ri min a tor

y e mpl oy me nt p ra c tic e or wi thi n 3 00 da y s, if the cla im ant h a s “ ini tia lly ins tit ute d p ro c e e din g s w itha

State or loc a l a g e nc y

wi th a uth or ity to g rant or se ek re lief fr om such prac tice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5( e)( 1). He re, G rande rson waited ove r 4 0 0 d ay s a f

te r th e U n iv e r s it

y te r mi n a te d h im b e f

o r e f il in g a c h ar g e w it

h th e M E RC , well outside b o t h t h e 1 8 0

- d ay

an d 3 0 0

- d ay f i l i n g r e qu i r e m e n t s . S e c o n d , G r an d e r s o n d i d n o t a l l e g e a T i t l e V II discrimination claim in his charg e bef ore the MERC such as to put the University o n notice of aNo. 05-2453

Granderson v. U

niversity of Michigan

- 5 - po te nti a l c la im o f r a c ia l di sc ri min a tio n. Th e on ly c la ims Gr and e rs on a lle g e d a g a ins t th e Un ive rs ity related to (1) imprope r notification of his rig hts under the FM L A an d the ADA, a nd (2) imprope r termination at the c lose of his FMLA leave and the star t of his ADA leave. The se fa ctual alleg ations
we re ins uf

fi c ie nt t o p ut t

he Un ive rs ity on no tic e that Gra nd e rs on pe rc e ive d hims e lf to be the vic tim of discrimination. Cf. Dix on v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 212, 218 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (apply ing the “scope of investigation test” to determine whe ther fa ctual alleg ati o n s we re s ufficie nt to put the EEOC on
no tic e that th e c la ima

nt pe rc e ive d him se lf to be a vic timof ra c ia l di sc ri min a tio n) . In s um, e ve n if
we we re to c onsider Gr ander son’s MERC char g e equivalent to an EEOC char g e, it would still not provide a g ree n light to bring a Title VI Iaction in cour t: Grande rson did not file his char g e on time, nor did the cha

rg e conta in a claim of r acia l discrimination. Next, Grander son argues, in essenc e, t h at Ti tle VI I ’s exhaustion requireme nt should be equitably tolled as he ha s now filed a c harg e with the EEOC. See, e .g., Truit t v. County of W ayne , 148 F
. 3 d 6 4 4 , 6 4 6 ( 6 th

Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( e xp la in in g th a t t h e e xh a u s ti o nr e qu ir e me n t i s a

p r e c o n d it ion “that, like a statute of limitations, i s subject to waiver , esto p p el , and equitable tolling”) (citation omitted). Grande rson attribut es hi s four- y ear delay in filing charg es wit h the EEOC to being “bed ridden and house bound” w ith a pain level that wa s “10+.” These r easons do not, howe ver, e x empt him from Title VI I ’s timely filing a nd exhaustion requirements. See Lomax v. Sears, Ro ebuck & Co. , N o . 9 9

- 6 5 8 9 , 2 0 0 0 W L 1 8 8 8 7 1 5 , a t * 6 ( 6 t h C i r . D e c . 1 9 , 2 0 0 0 ) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ( “ [ A ] l l [ T i t l e V II] claimants, including pro se c laimants, have a responsibility to meet the r equire ments of the law . .

. . ” ); se e als o La tti mo re v . P ola ro id C or p ., 99 F.3d 456 ( 1st Cir. 1996) (“[ P ] ro s e s t at u s d oes not relieve [a plaintiff] of the obligation to meet proc ed ural re quirements esta blished by

law.”)
.No. 05-2453

Granderson v. U

niversity of Michigan

- 6 - Gr an d er s o nh as s i m

p l y p re s en t edn o t h i n g p er s u as i v e t o ex cu s e hi s l en gt h y d el ay i nfi l i n g a c h ar ge wi th t he EE OC
. Finally , Gra

nderson a rg ues that his att o rney

was incompe tent, missed hear ings, did not
answe r motions, did not s ubmit briefs, met with Grande rson only to te ll him t hat his case had bee n di sm is sed , a

nd re fu se d to e xpla in t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt d ism iss ingthe c a se . E ve n if the se
c la ims are c or

re c t, t he y do no t e xcu se Gr and e rs on ’s d ela y in see kin g re lie f b e fo re the EE OC
. G r an d e r s o nf

a i l e d t o f i l e a c h ar g e w i t h t h e E E O C f o r o v e r f o u r ye ar s an d

w a i t e d o v e r 4 0 0 d a ys befor e filing a cha

rg e with the MERC. Grande rson’s attorne y cannot be blamed for

this delay , as Gra nderson ha d not y et re tained an a ttorney during most of this t ime. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.